|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
"Could Google have invented it's own API and SSO"
The answer is yes they could, but it would inconvenience Java developers, but it
is not the critical part of the question.
"Android users would have had to learn a new vocabulary..."
You cannot copyright individual words and short phrases.
Explicitly, if what is being asked for 'protection' (the SSO) can be replaced by
changing the vocabulary, then Oracle are asking for copyright on vocabulary.
Which you cannot have.
It is imperative that Google be open and honest and not try to dodge this
bullet.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
I understand. You have understood the
judge's thinking, probably. But keep in
mind that Groklaw isn't a FUD machine.
We actually are interested in the truth.
So if Android could do it and have things
work, I'm not going to write that it
couldn't. That's exactly what sets
Groklaw apart from the paid fudsters.
And it's why people trust Groklaw. That
is what Groklaw is for, actually, to
be an independent voice where folks can
come and help work in a group to figure
out what is really true and then tell it
true.
I don't know the answer to the judge's
question, although I think I do enough
to put something in the article. But I
do know that the Google testimony was
that at the beginning, it had multiple
choices. That's why the "they all suck"
email is dated to after Android was
already done and the issue was what can
we now use if we have to instead of what
we did use, now that there is a new sheriff
in town with corporate amnesia?
The question the judge is asking is about
Java. Could Google have used the publicly
available Java language without the APIs?
That's his question. Did they have a choice
and just took the easy route? It's legally
important, in the copyright context, because
if you have only one way to do it, then
it's functional and you can't be liable for
infringement. If there are two or more and
the others are noninfringing, you can be.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
umm.. parallel lines do meet - depending on the geometry used.
For instance, put two 90 degree angles on a sphere. The lines will meet
somewhere, and the sum of all angles will vary from 180 to 270, depending on
where the two angles are put in relation to each other.
Oracle is trying to redefine the geometry.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|